Thiel with "Warmest" Midrange? 2.7 vs 3.7 vs Older


I know, I know, Thiels of all speakers are NOT known for a "warm" midrange, at least that's their reputation.

But I'd nonetheless be interested in how people would rate the general sense of midrange "warmth" and "fullness/richness" of the various Thiel models through the years, including the CS 3.7 and 2.7 models.

(I've noted that around the time of the CS 7.2 and CS6, I was actually seeing the descriptors like "smooth" and "warm balance" which is not something I'm seeing much in descriptions of the newer 2.7 and 3.7).

So I'd be interested in such comparisons between older to newer Thiels through the years, and for the 2.7 vs the 3.7.

Feel free to stop reading there, but for those interested below I'll share my thoughts about Thiel, why I'm asking this, and why I have "Thiel Fever" again…..

--------------------------

I'm on a quest to try Thiel speakers in my system again, and I'm particularly interested in the culmination of Jim Thiel's efforts, the CS 3.7. But it's been a long time since I've heard Thiels and unfortunately as we know, they've been discontinued, and all the product dumped by dealers. (I think I missed the boat by literally a month or two, my zeal-for-Thiel re-igniting just last month).

Like many audio-nuts, I've gone through periods of crazy extensive speaker auditioning (though I'm talking well in the past now, I've kept up minimally in the last decade or so).

I love a warm, full midrange (like many others here) and I feel that one of the defining elements of "real voices and acoustic instruments" is a sense of that organic warmth. That's after all why I also favour tube amplification (the ones that tend to reduce the mechanical elements of the sound - I happen to use Conrad Johnson amps at the moment).

So why am I after Thiels, given their reputation for leaner, cooler sound?

I'd always admired the Thiel speakers, starting with the 3.6 as I remember. They always struck me as somehow "telling me the truth" about a recording, and how those instruments sounded, in an almost Quad ESL type manner. (I don't mean the Whole Truth, neither being perfect speakers, but they gave some sort of window on the truth, a sense of accuracy within their limits, that seemed to separate them from the pack). So there was a certain rightness of tone I'd hear through the Thiels.

And one of the main characteristics I LOVED about the Thiels is one often mentioned in reviews: their amazing focus and density of sound. It's not just the concept of pin-point imagine per se, in terms of being able to point to exactly where an instrument is playing in the soundstage, but the sense of all the sonic information of that instrument coalesced into a dense whole - giving a better sense of solid objects vibrating sound in front of me, vs most other speakers. I think that was something that really connected me to their sound. I found even mediocre old recordings, though revealed as such, gained more life, drive and liveliness through the Thiels than the soggier-sound approach that can cover up harshness, but also
reduce the excitement of the presentation.

On the down side, Thiels to me sounded a bit over damped, a bit too tight, and a bit leaner than I would prefer. Instruments sounded made of the right materials, but reduced in weight. And the sound tended to be a bit on the dry, forward side. So I admired them, but couldn't love them. And my quest went on.

(I ended up, after Quad ESL 63/Gradient subwoofer, moving to Von Schwiekert VR4 Gen IIs…with stops at Shun Mook speakers, Waveform, Audio Physic virgo/Libra/Scorpio, Hales T-5s, Meadowlark, currently own some MBL 121s etc).

But way back at CES 2000, after hearing the Thiel CS6 speakers in a room or two (I'd heard and admired them in showrooms before) I happened upon the VAC amplification room, which also employed the CS6. I was about to move on when I realized I couldn't stop listening. I sat down and heard among the most beautiful reproduction I'd ever heard - this was Thiels…on TUBES! It had all the Thiel virtues I loved, the precision, truth, density of sound, tonal believability, dynamics etc, but it was no longer dry and tight, but had a liquidity and more of the body I found to be more believable and gorgeous. It was an epiphany: I'd always dismissed the combination as a no-go zone due to the Thiel rep for requiring beefy solid state amplification.

Not too long after that I got hold of a pair of CS6s to try with my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 140W/side amps.
And it was fantastic! I got essentially the same type of gorgeous mix of characteristics as I'd heard at CES. It wasn't just me: audio pals declared it the best sound they'd ever heard in my room. (My room is on the small side, 13' by 15,' but it's odd dimensions and large room opening has allowed all the large floor standing speakers to work well in the room, and I don't listen loud at all).

But, for various room aesthetic and ergonomic reasons, and because I was changing the room to home theatre, I couldn't keep the CS6s.

But now, after many years of using various other brands, I've got the hankering for Thiel again. I can't get out of my mind the characteristics they brought that I haven't quite found elsewhere.

And this led me to look into the "newer" CS3.7. I became excited about owning a Thiel speaker that could even surpass what I heard with the CS6, and which was also substantially smaller and lighter (important for how I will integrate this speaker into my room). The idea of owning the culmination of Jim Thiel's engineering efforts is very compelling.

But I realized I wanted the Thiels too late, only a month ago, just missing the boat after they'd been discontinued, and all the stocks dumped and snapped up.

So I have to appeal to those here with experience of these new Thiel models to help me out. I like a clean midrange, but I don't want sterile, nor do I want a speaker that will cause ear fatigue in the high frequencies (I have sensitive ears). And I guess the benchmark with which I'm most familiar is the CS6. Would you consider either the CS6 (or choose the 3.6, or CS7.2) to have a smoother, or warmer midrange relative to the newer 2.7 and 3.7 models?

Me sense in reading reviews is that the newer 2.7 and 3.7 have a "smoother" midrange insofar as being even lower in distortion than past Thiel speakers, but they could also sound brighter, being more extended in the highs (and the Thiel CS6 as I remember, was sometimes thought to be a bit lacking in the upper high frequency airiness, which perhaps even contributed to my ear comfort with that model?).

I'm hoping to strike magic again, pairing the 3.7 with my CJ Premier amps. As far as I can tell from the Stereophile measurements, the 3.7s don't look any harder to drive (re my CJ amps) than the CS6, or the killer loads of my MBL, Hales speakers etc.

I'm also possibly interested in pairing VAC with the Thiels - I see some Renaissance 70/70s on sale sometimes - given the magic I'd heard at CES with that amp and the Thiels. (And Thiel's own blog reported that amp did some magic with the 3.7).

Finally, since there are no 3.7s available (used or otherwise that I can find) at this time, I may pick up a second-hand pair of 2.7s. My sense is that I would grab them to tide me over until some 3.7s showed up, though perhaps I'd like them enough to stick with the 2.7. And on that note, for anyone who has heard the 2.7 and 3.7, is the midrange any more "full" or rich on the bigger speakers?

Any words of wisdom or experience on these matters will be gratefully received.

(And, may as well ask: does anyone have a pair of 3.7s for sale? :-) )

Thanks,

Prof
prof
I've had quite a lot of experience with Thiels and tubes , for what it's worth. Firstly , 2.4s with an ARC REf 110 , currently 3.7's with an ARC REF 150.
the 3.7s love power but they also LOVE tubes ( IMO). I've read descriptions of Thiels being pigs to drive... Not sure I completely agree.Sure , Jim used to say " Watts are cheap" but the 3.7s can happily be run by tubes .
Great stuff, very encouraging. (And very persuasive Richardyc).

I'm wondering about the bass difference between the 2.7 and 3.7. The 2.7 is rated down to 35Hz, the 3.7 to 33Hz, so on paper very little difference. Though with the bigger woofer the 3.7 will be pushing more air.

I'm not actually a bass-head at all, and prefer nice pitch and control in the bass region. Any comparisons in bass quality between the two would be appreciated.

I know someone who might sell me a pair of 2.7s in the most gorgeous ebony finish I've seen. It's probably the most beautiful speaker I've ever seen (from photos). And then I could pick up a pair of 3.7s in cherry wood. It's a nice finish, but definitely not my favorite, and I would seriously contemplate having it re-finished darker.
The choice about which way to go is killin' me.

(As for re-sale value, I get the feeling the 3.7s seem to sell pretty consistently...and I'm less sure about re-sale value of the 2.7s at this point).
Prof,
It seems the 3.7 is the speaker you 'really' want. Based on the responses posted here the 3.7 is simply the better speaker. I believe in getting what you truly want the first time around(if you can afford it). In the short and long term you're happier and content. This approach lessens 2nd guessing and the need to upgrade. Summary, get what you genuinely desire.
There is a very informative discussion of the bass in the 2.7 versus 3.7 in this post from 2 years ago :

Thiel 2.7

The 2.7 was Jim's design and included much that he learned from designing the 3.7.
I just stumbled on this thread from Prof - always excited to read and talk about Thiels, they are the only speaker for me. My experience run deep with legacy brands, the 3.6 and the CS6.

I have used 3.6's for about 12 years and have owned the CS6 for a while as well. I prefer the 3.6 and currently that is what I am running, but occasionally throw the 6's in. They have obvious family similarities but have differences also since the driver design is different. Prof, like you, once you get the presentation of truth and beautiful tonality baked into your head it is hard for me to settle for other speakers.

I actually built my dedicated room around them, ventured off to another brand - Egglestons for a short while and came back to Thiel. Great upstream choices and also very important - room to experiment with placement makes the 3.6 for me unbeatable, for my taste that is!

With a lot of space between them the are boxless and open with dense and intimate soundstage presentation when called for. I really looked hard at the 3.7 when it came out, listened to it alot at 2 different B/M. One with uber expensive upstream components/cables and one with I believe NAD integrated and digital with marginally priced cabling. Both systems sounded great but I just could not see dropping 12 to 14K for what I perceived to be not that much difference over my 3.6. I am sure side by side it would be different. But my enjoyment level is plenty high, so I passed. I am getting to the point where if I can't hear it in my room, I cannot get excited about taking a plunge. I am not a fan of buying and selling - I tend to hang on to my equipment - as you can see from my system page, I have other stuff not listed! My wife enjoys reminding me of that habit also... And demo's on things other than cables is hard to find.

I have no experience with the 2.4 or 2.7 but have certainly read glowing remarks from owners on this site and in this thread. It is so disappointing that Thiel is no longer in business as we know it, but that is the business world we live in, not a lot of esoteric businesses in high end audio left.